Posted on 06/20/2011 5:22:09 PM PDT by lancer256
Repeal all the laws since 1960.
A single amendment repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments. C’mon, what else am I going to say? ;)
Congressional term limits.
Or preventing any organization from creating defacto laws without the approval of both houses of Congress: (EPA, ATF, DEA, etc.)
“But, just for the heck of it, if you could make just one change to the Constitution, what would it be?”
Oh, I’d just change one article.
Article VII
“A majority vote of 75% in support, by the citizens of each and of all States, taken separately and together, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Upon ratification, on the same ballot as each federal election, a State shall provide to its citizens the option of removing it and themselves from such establishment, by a majority vote of the population of a State’s citizens. Such removal shall be without encumbrance and total, with the former State and its citizens owing no obligation whatsoever to the federal government, their former fellow States, or any agencies, allies or creations thereof.”
See above (and my post 26).
What does that mean?
The key to our freedom is the 10th amendment. The states can literally end run the feds by engaging in compacts, which obviate the need for the federal gov’t. No need for conventions. No need for amendments. Just the assertion by the states, acting collectively, will do the trick. Ah, the genius of the founders...
A new convention, given today's America, would lead to a total replacement that would codify all the best of the fascist, socialist, and communist versions of marxism...
The marxists who now rule us, both in and out of government, are the driving force behind this movement....Just as they are behind the promotion of every left-wing RINO as GOP candidates for office...
From his private ring in hell, Felix Dhzerzinsky must laughing his ass off.
A 75% majority would have to vote for it. That figure and language are just off the cuff, of course. You’d prefer something more Founder-ish, like “provided three-fourths of the propertied citizens concur” type verbiage? Fine by me.
Yep. That would be a disaster for freedom. The global socialist would totally dominate the process.
We just need to restore the constitutional Republic and rights that we already have. We need Hilterly’s “reset” button. However, we might need to spilt the country between a constitutional free Republic and a global socialist utopia.
No need to get defensive. You said "a majority vote of 75% in support", which sounds like a majority of three-fourths of the people. Now I know you simply meant three-fourths support.
How did our Founders prevent the Constitutional Convention “from being hijacked and have good intents become ill”... in the last few days they put all of their faith in GOD and well reasoned men were swayed by Patriots armed with facts and review of events.
I know that I posted it in a thread yesterday but I think it goes a long way in explaining what it takes to attain Freedom and Liberty as well as to keep it. Do a search on Patrick Henry’s 1775 speech. It is as applicable to today as it was in 1775.
LLS
THIS AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED OR EDITED, NOR ANY SUBSEQUENT RESTRICTIONS ENACTED,,,,,PERIOD.
The Federalist papers were quite clear, the amendment was created to keep the government AT BAY!!!!!!, not for duck hunting.
Right now a Con Con is your worst nightmare. Too many progressive loons on the loose.
Same thing with Congress proposing amendments, except Congress would be more liberal than a Con-Con. The fact is that the Ruling Class treats the Con-Con with dread--and propagandizes it as a horrible idea--because they don't want to lose control over proposing amendments. The Con-Con delegation would almost certainly be conservative (we control the state legislatures), and it would give a chance for we the people to reign in the Ruling Class. This is exactly why they hate it.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade.
I would only edit it to state, "This amendment shall not be construed to prohibit laws against violence and fraud."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.